Democrats & Liberals: Archives

AP said:

“Regarding the two biggest proliferation problems today, Iran and North Korea, President Bush just told Iran, “it’s a right of a government to want to have a civilian nuclear program,” yet he refuses to allow North Korean development of civilian nuclear power.”

Last I knew NK was flaunting the fact that they were pursuing weapons, whereas Iran was saying ALL they wanted was a civilian program. Those are sigificant situational differences.

Bush is just following his own Pavlovian education. Reward your friends and punish everyone else unless doing so would turn his friends against him. This has been true in his politics, his economics, his foreign policy, and his personnel management.

Bush reminds me of a line in Crimson Tide where the captain is explaining the training of Lippenzanner horses. He said something close to: “Stick a cattle prod up their ass and you can train a horse to do anything.” It would appear Bush has been trained in just such a fashion. Remember his inability to speak contemporaneously without sticking both feet in his mouth? The polls and media were the cattle prod, and he doesn’t speak unscripted anymore. He truly does not understand the inherent dangers of nuclear proliferation. And he acts as if nuclear power is nothing more than a reward/punishment to be doled out as a bargaining chip or bonus.

Last I knew NK was flaunting the fact that they were pursuing weapons… Those are sigificant situational differences.

Sure, Stephanie. Everyone agrees that NK shouldn’t have nuclear weapons. But their civilian program is a different story, and my point is that President Bush is inconsistent on that issue.

But here’s the wacky thing: we know that Iran was using its civilian nuclear program to pursue nuclear weapons, yet President Bush says they have the right to a civilian program.

On the other hand, there’s never been any credible evidence that NK used their civilian program for nuclear weapons, but President Bush refuses to allow them a civilian program.

President Bush’s approach to the right of sovereign nations to have a civilian nuclear program is totally incoherent. And that’s a problem, because the world looks to the US for leadership on this issue.

There should be a system in place that allows countries to benefit from nuclear power, but denies them the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

John Kerry proposed a system where only trusted countries like the US and Europe supply and control nuclear fuel. ElBaradei at the IAEA proposed a similar system.

President Bush hasn’t thought about it at all, preferring to apply international rules on nuclear proliferation in a reactionary, ad hoc manner that encourages other countries to test the limits.

Nice job, AP. Keep writing about this. Nuclear proliferation is one of those super important issues that we all tend to willfully ignore about because we feel so powerless to anything about. It should become one of the top issues of upcoming elections. I wish senators and representatives had to answer more questions about it.

Good article AP, I’d also add Israel has refused to join the NPT as well. This has been a serious issue for some of the Middle Eastern nations.

“He truly does not understand the inherent dangers of nuclear proliferation”

Rest assured David, President Bush understands these dangers far better than you.

I’m sure if Bush hit every known and suspected Iranean nuclear site tomorrow, you’d be one of the first to condemn it.

And if Kerry had won in November, where nothing in this regard would have been any different, you strangely wouldn’t have written about how Kerry “truly does not understand the inherent dangers of nuclear proliferation”.

Good stuff, but Paul Siegal still wins.

Good points, Rag.

The Democrats do everything possible to weaken the administration’s hand in dealing with rogue states and nuclear proliferation—obstructing John Bolton because they think he’s too undiplomatic, whining about the need to suck up to foreign goverments who lack the will to stand up to anyone—while condemning out of the other side of their mouths that he doesn’t take a hard enough line.

When they ask the administration to take a hard line against anybody, it tends to be a democratic government like Israel or India—both who have more to fear from nuclear proliferation among Islamic States than even we do.

AP,

“But here?s the wacky thing: we know that Iran was using its civilian nuclear program to pursue nuclear weapons, yet President Bush says they have the right to a civilian program.

On the other hand, there?s never been any credible evidence that NK used their civilian program for nuclear weapons, but President Bush refuses to allow them a civilian program.”

Bush is recommending sanctions for both…so where’s the contradicition?

Nuclear proliferation is like the war in Iraq. You can’t do it without the consequences be greater than the reasons for doing it. That is the flaw in Bush’s thinking. He actually believed he could invade, win a military victory in Iraq, and then convert a country ripe for civil war into a peaceful united nation favorable to the US. He was wrong. Dead Wrong. Same deal with nuclear proliferation. If he gives nuclear technology to other countries like India, there will be absolutely no logical rational to deny China and Russia from doing the same for their own purposes just like Bush did.

Why the man can’t see the consequences of his decisions beyond his nose is inexplicable, except maybe for the brain damage that resulted from those years of snorting stuff up his nose. The first step toward fighting nuclear proliferation is to stop proliferating. DUH!!!!

And no, Rag, I don’t think he does. He fears the consequences, but, he does not understand, or he would not contribute to the problem by his own actions.

Stephanie, here’s the contradiction:

Regarding the two biggest proliferation problems today, Iran and North Korea, President Bush just told Iran, “it’s a right of a government to want to have a civilian nuclear program,” yet he refuses to allow North Korean development of civilian nuclear power.

And the fact that we can go back and forth like this just underscores the lack of coherent policy. Can sovereign nations have a civilian nuclear program or not? Under what conditions? President Bush has no answer to those questions.

Rag and sanger, thanks for the pure conjecture. The fact is, Democrats have a coherent policy on nuclear proliferation, Republicans do not.

I suppose if you guys ever figure it out, you could stop with the “If Kerry was President blah, blah, blah” BS and actually tell us what it it is.

AP,

I’m not a Republican and I certainly don’t have the President’s ear, but here’s my suggestion for a coherent policy on nuclear proliferation:

Get rid of it all!

Theirs, yours and ours…all of it. Ban any use of nuclear energy and/or nuclear weapons.

Anything less is hypocritical. Anything less is unclear. Anything less is unfair. Anything less is unsafe.

But…that’s not going to happen any time in the near future, so no matter what other policies the Dems or the Reps come up with it’s either let everyone develop it at their own pace or let noone have any of it, anything other than that is playing favorites and asking for trouble.

AP,

I’m not a Republican and I certainly don’t have the President’s ear, but here’s my suggestion for a coherent policy on nuclear proliferation:

Get rid of it all!

Theirs, yours and ours…all of it. Ban any use of nuclear energy and/or nuclear weapons.

Anything less is hypocritical. Anything less is unclear. Anything less is unfair. Anything less is unsafe.

But…that’s not going to happen any time in the near future, so no matter what other policies the Dems or the Reps come up with it’s either let everyone develop it at their own pace or let noone have any of it, anything other than that is playing favorites and asking for trouble.

thats not going to happen. you simply cannot un-invent something, especially something big like nuclear technology, 60 years after the fact. Its grown too big, too common. high school kids can tell you about the principles that fat man and little boy operated under, or the innerworkings of a PWR reactor, or what happened at three mile island.
IMO, just putting out heads in the sand and pretending that nuclear technology doesnt exist or saying it shouldnt exist is not an option. again, IMO, nuclear programs should be openly and transparently monitered by the international community. that is the absolute best we can realistically hope for.

young GDI,

I didn’t say that it was realistic. I know it’s not going to happen. But, picking and choosing who can have, saying we can have it but it can’t be proliferated, is not realistic either. No matter how we fight it, it’s going to get to the point where everyone has it. That’s human nature.

young GDI,

IMO, nuclear programs should be openly and transparently monitered by the international community. that is the absolute best we can realistically hope for.

Monitered and, even better/more utopian, shared. I mean sharing the latest civil nuclear technology openly. Obvioulsy not every country would have the industry strength to implement these technologies as fast as others but at least by sharing they could.

I really hope the ITER project could show the way here, as one of the few really international nuclear technology pre-industrial research project since… well *never*.

Energy resource access is a global issue, how we solve it as human kind impact our all little planet, starting by our climate until we solve this issue in a better way than currently. It’s *way* time we work all together to solve this issue *together*.

BTW, I just heard that NK has agreed to drop all his nuclear weapons programs and to ratify again the NPT after China, Russia, South Korea and Japan offer to open talks soon on how to help NK fixing their energy issue thru nuclear civil industry, by eventually funding a light water nuclear power plant.
Seems someones start moving their nuclear policy in the right direction here, no?

Stephanie, it’s possible for everyone to benefit from nuclear power without everyone having the ability to make a bomb. By having only trusted countries or organizations enrich uranium for nuclear power plants, other countries never need to develop the process themselves.

It’s not inevitable that every country will develop nuclear weapons. But without a coherent policy on proliferation (with absolute transparency being the most basic part - thanks young GDI), it could end up that way.

Hey, Philippe, thanks for the update. That’s great news about NK!

Let’s see, that deal looks familiar… Oh yeah! It’s the 1994 Agreed Framework! Congratulations, President Bush. You just got us back to where we were before your “Axis of Evil” nonsense (except that NK built 8+ nukes since then). Kim Dae-jung’s “sunshine policy” can pick up where it left off when President Bush torpedoed it.

One more Democratic plan embraced by the Republicans… Life is good. The next step is to help McDonald’s, KFC, and VISA establish a beach head in North Korea, and assimilation will be complete.

AP,

“…it’s possible for everyone to benefit from nuclear power without everyone having the ability to make a bomb.”

I don’t think nuclear power is necessary or safe in and of itself. I think researching green methods of obtaining or producing energy is a much wiser course of action, than spreading nuclear technology that is extreme toxic. Once we have viable green methods of obtaining or producing energy we should share that with the world to reduce or eliminate both power shortages and nuclear waste.

Stephanie, that’s a great idea. I hope you’re voting for representatives who feel the same way.

BTW, check out The Apollo Alliance: Three million new jobs. Freedom from foreign oil.

Why would you expect me to be impressed by a partisan “global” organization that doesn’t seem to be accomplishing much?

As for my voting habits, I typically vote for the Constitution party, which does call us to be conservative with our environment as well as with other issues, but that’s only when the two major parties allow third-party candidates on the ballot, which is getting more and more rare it seems.

Yikes! Stephanie, it’s a non-partisan organization uniting business, labor, religious organizations, and political leaders at the local, state, and federal level to push for alternative energy and the jobs and national security that come with it. It’s hardly a partisan organization.

Maybe you should make sure the Constitution Party is involved, if they aren’t already. :)

AP,

“Yikes! Stephanie, it’s a non-partisan organization…”

If it’s so non-partisan, why are all the names of politicians that I can find on that website the names of Democrats? Seven governors? All Democrats, one of which is the schmuck who leads my state, the schmuck who (except for the war and other strictly federal things) has done just about everything y’all are so against Bush for. I’m sorry, but you obviously have a different view of what non-partisan means than I do. I can’t find a single political name that doesn’t reek of the Democrat Party or the name of a non-politician that can’t be linked directly back to it.

If the Green Party isn’t involved, if the Constitution Party isn’t involved, if the Democrats seem to be the ONLY party that is involved, I cannot trust this organization as being something truly intended ONLY to help the environment. It seems like a political stunt to me, especially considering I know Doyle isn’t doing much at all to protect Wisconsin’s environment that wasn’t started when Tommy Thompson, a Republican, was governor.

Doyle is the worst thing that has happened to Wisconsin since I moved here (granted that’s only been around 7 years), which is pretty remarkable considering McCullum (who took over when Thompson went to Washington at Bush’s request) was a total putz who really didn’t know what he was doing.

I didn’t think Doyle could possibly do worse…until he gutted the medical assistance budget, and the school budget, and the special needs budget (that includes nursing homes and other long-term care vacilities), and…well, this could be a very long list, including pollution dumping that he has been unable (or unwilling) to stop from businesses that are also directly linked to the Democrats.

Basically, the way I see it is…you know how the Republicans have made it a party stance to keep us safe from terrorists, ect.? Well, the Democrats have made it a party stance to keep us safe from environmental pollutants with the same piss-poor results, even in the communities where the Dems have the control.

Doyle can whitewash his record all he wants, but I live here. I live near the tail-end of the Rock River in Wisconsin. It continues to get worse each year. Businesses still make the news for non-compliance with environmental laws. Do a little digging, and you see the presidents of these same businesses making public appearances right along side Doyle, shaking hands and smiling. It really leaves a lot of questions about Doyle’s dedication to the environment. And the only answer I’ve been able to come up with is “he has none.”